Confirmation Bias and the Minnesota ICE Shooting
Why We Knew Everyone’s Take Before We Saw the Video
There’s a moment that happens on social media now that feels almost boring in how predictable it is.
A video drops.
A shooting.
A headline involving police, ICE, or the federal government.
And before you even click play, you already know what half the people you follow are going to say.
Not because you’ve seen the evidence — but because you know who they are.
That’s confirmation bias. And the Minnesota ICE shooting is a near-perfect case study.
The Event Isn’t the Interesting Part Anymore
In Minnesota, an ICE agent shot and killed a woman named Renee during a federal enforcement operation. Videos quickly circulated — partial angles, phone footage, clips ripped out of context and reposted with captions that did most of the persuading before the footage ever loaded.
Federal authorities say the agent acted in self-defense.
Local officials and activists dispute that.
Protests followed.
So did commentary.
None of that is surprising.
What is interesting is how little time anyone spent uncertain.
You Knew Their Take Before They Posted It
Be honest with yourself for a second.
You knew exactly how your ultra-conservative connections were going to frame it:
Support the agent
Emphasize danger, split-second decisions, law and order
Question the victim’s actions
You also knew exactly how your progressive or activist connections were going to frame it:
Condemn ICE
Emphasize abuse of power, systemic violence
Center the victim and the political context
And you knew this before watching the video.
Before reading statements.
Before context had time to exist.
That’s not analysis.
That’s pattern recognition driven by ideology.
What Confirmation Bias Actually Looks Like in Real Life
Confirmation bias isn’t just “people defending what they already believe.”
It’s more subtle and more dangerous than that.
It’s when:
We expect someone’s conclusion before they speak
We trust evidence only when it agrees with our identity
We dismiss complexity as betrayal or weakness
We treat interpretation as loyalty instead of inquiry
At that point, the video isn’t evidence — it’s ammunition.
The goal stops being understanding what happened.
The goal becomes defending who we are.
Two Videos, Two Realities
Multiple videos from the Minnesota shooting are circulating.
Different angles.
Different moments.
Different captions telling you what to think before you watch.
Each side points to the clip that best supports their narrative and treats the rest as propaganda, misinformation, or irrelevance.
That’s how confirmation bias operates:
Not by hiding facts — but by ranking them based on comfort.
This Is Why These Conversations Go Nowhere
Once confirmation bias sets in, conversations don’t fail because people disagree.
They fail because:
Motives are assumed, not questioned
Curiosity is replaced with certainty
Empathy is reserved only for people who already agree
At that point, no amount of evidence feels sufficient — because the disagreement isn’t about facts anymore.
It’s about identity protection.
This Isn’t About Picking “The Right Side”
This isn’t a defense of ICE.
It isn’t an indictment of protestors.
It isn’t a call for silence or false balance.
It’s a reminder that knowing what you think before you’ve examined the evidence is not the same as being informed.
And assuming you already know what everyone else thinks because of their politics is how we stop seeing each other as people and start seeing each other as avatars.
The Hard Truth
Confirmation bias feels good.
It feels efficient.
It feels like clarity.
But it comes at a cost.
When every event becomes proof of what we already believed, we stop being critical thinkers and start being narrators of our own mythology.
And when ideology matters more than evidence, justice becomes optional — depending on who it threatens.
If There’s Any Point to This
It’s not to tell you what conclusion to reach.
It’s to ask one uncomfortable question before you share, comment, or react:
“Would I interpret this differently if the people involved weren’t already part of a story I believe about the world?”
If the answer is yes — congratulations.
You’ve spotted confirmation bias in real time.
What you do with that awareness is up to you.
